Quick Summary
Suresh Rathi (name changed) was persuaded to pay three years of advisory fees in a single upfront payment. His total claim reached 4,22,000. SEBI limits how much advance fee an investment adviser can collect from a client at one time. Our team used that limit to recover 3,00,000, a 71.1 percent share.
Suresh (name changed) was introduced to a SEBI-registered investment adviser through a family referral in early 2024. The adviser offered a discount if he paid for three years of service upfront.
Suresh paid ₹4,22,000 in one transaction, expecting continuous support for the full three years. For the first four months, the relationship worked normally.
SEBI rules restrict how many years of fees an investment adviser can collect upfront from a retail client. Collecting three years’ fees at once falls outside that permitted limit.
After month five, communication began to slow. Calls became fewer, responses were delayed, and by month eight, the adviser had stopped responding altogether.
Suresh had already paid for years of service, but the relationship had lasted less than one.
That advance payment left him with little leverage. A monthly-paying client can stop paying when service deteriorates. Suresh had already paid the entire amount.
His only real option was a formal complaint.
The Case: How a Multi-Year “Discount” Led to a ₹4.22 Lakh Loss
Our team requested the original payment confirmation showing the full three-year amount collected in one transaction, along with the service agreement Suresh had signed.
Step 1: Identifying the SEBI Advance Fee Limit Breach
We calculated the exact number of years the single payment covered and matched it against the SEBI limit on advance fee collection.
Step 2:Documenting the Drop in Advisory Service
We compiled a timeline of the adviser’s declining responsiveness from month five onward, using message timestamps as evidence of the drop in service.
Step 3: Building a Dual-Ground Legal Claim
We argued both the advance fee breach and the failure to deliver the contracted service across the full paid period, strengthening the file on two fronts.
Step 4: Escalating via the SEBI SCORES Portal
Our filing through the SEBI SCORES portal led with the tenure breach, since it is easiest to verify, and used the service gap as supporting context.
The adviser’s response argued the discount justified the advance structure and that Suresh had agreed to it in writing. We countered that client consent does not override a regulatory limit on advance fee tenure.
The Outcome: ₹2,95,000 Recovered in 12 Weeks
We helped Suresh document the three-year upfront payment, verify the applicable fee tenure limit, and build the complaint around the violation.
We also organised his payment records and communication history to show how the advisory service declined after the upfront fee was collected.
Once the evidence was presented through SCORES, the adviser agreed to settle. Suresh recovered ₹2,95,000 of his ₹4,22,000 claim, a 71.1% recovery, within twelve weeks.
Paid years of advisory fees upfront but received only months of proper service?
Register with us and let our team help you document the violation, check the applicable tenure limits, and pursue recovery through SEBI.
Conclusion
A discount for paying years in advance can look attractive at first. It also removes your ability to walk away when service quality drops.
Check how many years your advisory payment actually covers before you sign. If it goes beyond what SEBI permits, that alone is worth raising as a complaint.
If a firm goes quiet after a valid grievance, the process does not stop there. Our team escalates through the SMART ODR portal to keep the file moving.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Regardless of any discount offered, collecting fees beyond the permitted advance tenure breaks SEBI's investment adviser regulations.
No. A client signature on a non compliant fee structure does not make the structure valid under SEBI rules.
The permitted tenure is set by SEBI regulations and has changed over time, so our team checks the exact limit applicable to your payment date.
Yes. A documented drop in service after an advance payment adds useful context, even though the fee tenure breach stands on its own.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
